beerhunter Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Another idea would to have a photo section with no comments allowed or just put up a simple poll for each picture, but again with no extra comments.
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 And now a moment for rebuttal: "because there is compelling evidence to say it's a hoax. If there wasn't nobody would debate against it." Human nature, as I have observed it, would certainly argue against the latter point. true some people would argue anything, but there are things about the PGF film and the mysteru around it which makes it suspicious "Your statement about "armchair Bigfoot experts" is a logical fallacy, as there are no Bigfoot experts." Of course there are bigfoot experts. Really. A few do come to mind. Oh really, and what degree in Bigfooting do they have? Have they tracked them and gathered evidence? None that I know of. There are speculators,fans,afficianado's, hucksters, well meaning people who have had odd experiences and out and out con artists. But I have yet to read any expert information in regards to morphology,behavior or sexual reproduction..... "In other words, any statements made without evidence, while not necessarily false,cannot be supported as being true and are thusly under the guise of lending no credence to the existence of Bigfoot. " thusly under the guise of lending no credence? Really? Yeah, I may have gotten a bit carried away with my language there!! lol "It's all conjecture and speculation. If you disagree all I ask is for some evidence to back up your claims. Claims without evidence are just tales, stories and folklore. " Debate club? nope, never was in debate club. Yet you seem to not want to argue the points but rather dismiss me personally, isn't that against forum rules? Prove me wrong that without evidence, all you have is anecdotes. I never said that what was experienced isn't true but that doesn't mean it was either. "True evidence DOES stand on it's own two feet. If you feel that you don't want your position scrutinized might I suggest keeping your position private. As any person worth their scientific salt is gonna require supporting evidence of any claim. As of yet, no evidence exists, when that time comes, I will be happy to look at it and support it if it merits it." It is probably true that demanding proof, or demanding anything, for that matter, goes against the grain of human nature and will mostly just earn you resentment from folks. Actually, learning to accept comments in their intended conversational manner and using a less stringent standard of proof might be more practical on an internet bigfoot chat forum. we should never accept a lower standard of proof for ANYTHING!! It's like the MLB Hall of Fame. Once you start lowering the bar before you know it, everything gets to join in!!! Another idea would to have a photo section with no comments allowed or just put up a simple poll for each picture, but again with no extra comments. great idea!!!!
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 BY WOOKIE73 [Oh really, and what degree in Bigfooting do they have? Have they tracked them and gathered evidence? None that I know of. There are speculators,fans,afficianado's, hucksters, well meaning people who have had odd experiences and out and out con artists. But I have yet to read any expert information in regards to morphology,behavior or sexual reproduction..... ] Factually NO ONE has what you are insisting on....and since you seem to already know that ''What's your point?''
Guest WesT Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Hmmm, I disagree to an extent. If someone presents evidence that looks sketchy, or isn't really good, isn't it the duty of all to point out the problems inherent within? If a biologist looks at a peer's salmon data and thinks" well, this doesn't look right, it looks fudged a bit" shouldn't he alert said peer that there are some problems with his data? Being courteous is one thing, but in my experience anyway, when you tell a footer his picture looks like a suit they get really nasty. If you do some research into sighting reports you'll notice alot of them say "it looked just like a person in a monkey suit". So pics, no matter how clear and close they are, will more than likely, still look like a man in a monkey suit. The main problem with riding in the shotgun seat of the skeptic bandwagon is you'll never be able to look at any type of evidence in an objective manner. Same goes for the polar opposites. I see it as a problem some people seem to have with criticism. If you can't handle criticism (or your data/pic/video...etc can't stand up to it) then this entire Bigfoot thing is never going to go anywhere. Good data/evidence stands on it's own two feet and needs no defending. Yes, in an ideal world that would be true. But I don't think it's so much a problem with critisism. While constructive critisism and analysis is one thing, running ones mouth is quite another and people do know the difference between the two.
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 BY WOOKIE73 [Oh really, and what degree in Bigfooting do they have? Have they tracked them and gathered evidence? None that I know of. There are speculators,fans,afficianado's, hucksters, well meaning people who have had odd experiences and out and out con artists. But I have yet to read any expert information in regards to morphology,behavior or sexual reproduction..... ] Factually NO ONE has what you are insisting on....and since you seem to already know that ''What's your point?'' I was merely stating that nobody is a Bigfoot expert as of yet. Perhaps, one day, someone will be able to write the definitive guide on the american sasquatch. I try to look at things as objectively as I can. I don't go into anything assuming it's fake or real or wtvr... I look at it with a realistic viewpoint. Does it look like and animal? Does it look photoshopped? I've never looked at a picture of a real animal and been concerned about the validity of the subject. A nice, high def , professionally taken picture of a sasquatch would be equally convincing .
Guest krakatoa Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 The topic is "Sitting on Good Evidence". Not "Sitting on blurry photos that the owner is "sure" is bigfoot." Lord knows, we get plenty of those unasked for. I think this topic is geared more towards those who claim to have clear and fairly unambiguous evidence of 'foot. So it is just a little disingenuous for those who have made such claims to hide behind the understandable arguments given by those with poor evidence. And it is downright "ridiculous" to then say that because poor evidence was treated with healthy skepticism and yes, even the occasional derisive comment by some, that everyone has lost the chance to see the good evidence. With this argument, you turn what should be a scientific inquiry onto its head. It turns the whole process into a circus side-show. Which brings me back to my general position on the whole topic: I doubt the existence of bigfoot far less than I do most of those who claim concrete proof of 'foot. 1
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 ''wookie73 said- But I have yet to read any expert information in regards to morphology,behavior or sexual reproduction..... '' I finally figured out what about you post put the burr under my saddle..... Had this conversation before with a friend who's a Medical Anthropologist. Their opinion was identical to yours.....the ''step'' that was skipped was, until we have definative ''hard science'' proof, the rest was in essence ''putting the cart before the horse''. Until we have some biological material that screams ''Bigfoot'', their behavior, morphology, sex cycles ect....are irrelevant. Observations in the field are still ultimately heresay evidence as are the tracks, vocals.... of course unless someone films one doing any of that in which case it's STILL not evidence without the biological sample to verify. Really...this is a lose-lose conundrum without a BF body in a morgue.
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I agree. Which is why I say there are no experts on Bigfoot ...yet. There are people who spend a lot of time involved in footery and may have multiple encounters. But until we have a specimen to fiddle with it's all just guessing.
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 On 9/16/2011 at 2:05 AM, Guest bmartin said: Why would people do it? I remember this from a while ago. Im sure most of you are familiar with it... http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/e5qwf/reddit_i_have_a_nevermadepublic_video_of/ It's even been discussed here... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/4792-never-before-seen-1996-video/ http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/8183-1996-bigfoot-footage/ I don't believe his tale personally but it got me thinking. Why would somebody get amazing evidence of something that is such a mystery and just stash it away? I can't see people acting this way. It makes me wonder though. What if somebody has gotten some very spectacular evidence but for whatever reason decided it should never see the light of day and tucked it away in there attic or something. Or even destroyed it. I recall a story (i dont know if its true or not) of a bigfoot caught on a surveillance camera at a casino or something, and they destroyed the footage. The guy says he just doesn't care if anybody sees the tape or not. How can this be? What you are talking about here is why I laugh whenever anyone says: why don't we ever get them on game cams? (If you don't know that no one has, shut up. If you do know that no one has, check into a psychiatric facility, pronto.) And if you or anyone else doesn't understand why someone would be sitting on absolute total proof...you have not spent enough time on the BFF. (Hint: see that bold up there? Well I wouldn't care either. At all. Why should they ever get to?)
Recommended Posts